Accent Housing Limited (202400609)

Decision
Case ID	202400609
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Accent Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 January 2026

Background

The resident lives in a terraced property with her 2 children. She complains that the landlord delayed unreasonably in addressing a leak from her roof from September 2023 until September 2024. She also complains that it has failed to take any action to address resulting damp and mould.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a leaking roof and resulting damp and mould.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found that there was:
1. Maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a leaking roof and resulting damp and mould.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Roof leak and damp and mould.

The landlord delayed unreasonably in repairing the roof leak from September 2023 until September 2024. It failed to take any action to mitigate the impact of the leak on the resident, and its communication with her was poor throughout the entire period. The landlord also failed to take any action to address the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Complaint handling.

The landlord delayed in issuing its stage 1 response, and then slightly delayed in issuing the stage 2 response. It failed to acknowledge this at either complaint stage.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 24 February 2026
2	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified person. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the property for any damp and mould. The surveyor must also produce a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: Whether there is damp and mould within the property. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue(s) together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue(s) (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work.	24 February 2026
3	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1075, made up as follows: £350 previously offered during its complaints process (if not already paid). An additional £650 for distress caused by its omissions in handling her reports of a roof leak and damp and mould. An additional £75 for complaint handling delays. The landlord must also consider any evidence the resident is able to submit regarding extra costs she incurred between September 2023 and September 2024 related to increased heating and electric bills due to the lack of insulation and running of dehumidifiers. It is then to set out its position on whether it will offer reimbursement for demonstrated extra costs as per its compensation policy. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	24 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 December 2023	The resident complained that her roof had been leaking since September 2023 and the landlord had failed to address it. She explained that she had not had any insulation since September since the landlord had to remove it before progressing the works due to a contamination by a historical rat infestation. She explained that she had been unable to sleep in her bedroom since the leak began. She also noted that she had incurred extremely high energy bills due to a lack of insulation and running dehumidifiers to counter the damp and mould resulting from the leak.
8 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It explained that: The resident reported a leak on 22 September 2023 and the landlord attended immediately and “made-safe” the electrics. It then inspected the roof and identified a leak on 25 September 2023. However, the contractor could not proceed with any works due to the presence of rat droppings. It removed rat droppings and some insulation on 5 October 2023. On 29 October 2023 the roofer attended and advised there were still rat droppings present. On 22 November 2023 the landlord removed all insulation from the loft. On 3 December 2023 the roofer inspected and advised some tiles were obsolete. It had sourced the tiles needed and intended to repair the roof. The landlord apologised for the “unacceptable” delay in sourcing the tiles, and lack of communication about the progress of repair. It explained that: The repairs had been further delayed by adverse weather, but it would keep the resident updated on progress. It would reinsulate the loft following the repair. It would also inspect the property for damp and mould. It offered the resident £250 compensation for stress and inconvenience.
8 February 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She explained that the ongoing delays were unacceptable and that the compensation offered did not go far enough to cover the extra costs she had incurred due to this.
12 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It explained that it intended to source the tiles required from another roof which it was replacing, and that the works could then take place once this replacement was complete. It advised the resident it would update her on the progress of these works. It apologized for a lack of communication and the ongoing delay. It also offered her a further £100 compensation for the inconvenience this caused her.
13 May 2024 Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident complained that the landlord had continued to delay unreasonably in fixing the leak. She explained that: There was resulting damp throughout the property. She could not use her bedroom when it was raining. She had incurred huge energy costs in extra heating bills and running dehumidifiers due to the lack of insulation. She considered the landlord should expediate the roof repair and treat any damp caused by the leak. She wanted compensation to cover her extra costs.
7 January 2026	In a phone call with the resident, she advised us that the landlord repaired the leak in September 2024. However, she noted that there was damp and mould throughout the property which remained unaddressed. She explained she would like the landlord to complete works to address damp and mould and provide a greater sum of compensation.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	How the landlord handled the resident’s reports of a roof leak and resulting damp and mould.
Finding	Maladministration

Roof leak

The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days. It also sets out that it will keep residents updated about the progress of works.
The resident first reported the leak on 22 September 2023. The landlord did well by immediately attending the property and making safe the light fitting that the leak was entering the bedroom through. It also did well by promptly sending a roofer to inspect the property on 29 September 2023. We can see the roofer then refused to complete the inspection due to the presence of rat droppings, and the landlord acted reasonably and with the safety of its contractor in mind by raising works to decontaminate the loft before progressing further.
However, the landlord did not attempt to decontaminate the loft until 2 November 2023. While we accept that the required decontamination of the loft was an unforeseen obstacle, there is no evidence to explain why it took over a month to attempt to do so. In the absence of this evidence, we consider the delay was unreasonable and unnecessarily delayed any eventual resolution.
Furthermore, we can see internal emails throughout November 2023 refer to the ongoing presence of rat droppings and note that works could not progress for this reason. Therefore, it appears that the landlord’s contractor failed to clear the loft of contaminated insulation on 2 November 2023. The landlord’s repairs policy obliges it to diagnoses issues clearly and in a way which ensures its contractors are able to address it at the first opportunity. It failed to do so here, which likely delayed things further. We also expect landlords to promptly reattend and rectify any incomplete works.
However, the landlord failed to clear the loft until 4 December 2023 despite the resident contacting it on a weekly basis chasing some kind of progress. This delay was unreasonable and likely caused the resident distress. The roofer was able to inspect the property on 4 December 2023 and diagnosed that the leak was being caused by a number of obsolete roof tiles. The landlord then delayed for 2 weeks in raising a works order to repair the roof on 19 December 2023. There is no evidence to justify this delay, and we consider it further delayed any resolution.
From 19 December 2023 until 26 January 2024 the landlord took no action to progress things. We would expect it to have promptly decided on a course of action following the 4 December 2023 inspection, and its unjustified delay in doing so likely compounded the resident’s distress.
On 26 January 2024 the landlord advised the resident that it had issues sourcing the required tiles to repair the roof. It then delayed in fixing the leak until 6 September 2024. This substantially exceeded the 28 day routine repair timescale under which it classified the repair.
We accept that the repair required scaffolding and the sourcing of specific tiles, and that these variables together likely delayed the works to a degree and made it difficult to set out clear timescales for the resident.
However, we do not consider that these issues justify a 9-month delay following the 4 December 2023 diagnosis, especially given there are significant periods during this time during which the landlord took no action. For example, there was no communication between repairs teams about the works from February 2024 until 6 March 2024 or following its stage 2 response until 23 April 2024. This likely contributed to the delay. There is also no evidence the landlord kept the resident update during this period as per its policy.
We can see emails on 6 March 2024 note that the works had been incorrectly marked as complete, and that there was no job outstanding on the landlord’s systems. It appears the landlord then had to reraise the works with its contractor. Therefore, it is clear that the landlord’s own poor handling of the repair played a significant role in the overall delay.
Furthermore, the landlord failed at any stage to consider how it might mitigate the ongoing impact of the leak on the resident or attempt any kind of temporary repair despite the resident’s increasingly distressed communications throughout the period. This was a significant missed opportunity to support the resident while she waited for the repair, and this omission likely compounded her distress.
We also note that the landlord failed to provide meaningful or proactive updates about the progress of the works from September 2023 to September 2024, contra to its repairs policy which obliges it to do so. This meant the resident incurred repeated inconvenience in chasing the landlord herself. This poor communication likely further compounded the distress she was caused by the ongoing delays.

Damp and mould.

The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for addressing damp and mould in the property. Its policy explains that, following reports of damp and mould, it will first attempt to treat this with a “damp and mould eradication kit.” If this does not succeed, a surveyor will inspect the property and raise works to address issues they identify.
The resident first reported damp and mould resulting from the leak on 10 November 2023. Internal emails from the same day note that the resident had “severe mould issues” due to the leak. We can see the landlord raised works the following day to inspect for damp and mould. It also committed to inspect the property in its 2 February 2024 stage 1 response.
Despite this, the landlord failed to make any attempts to treat the damp and mould. It also failed to inspect the property for damp and mould at any stage between September 2023 and September 2024. It therefore failed to handle the reports in line with its policy. This was poor, especially given the delays in addressing the roof leak. We consider this failure likely caused the resident significant distress.

Compensation.

Given the failures we have identified and the significant impact these likely caused the resident, we will order the landlord pays compensation to put these right.
The landlord delayed significantly in repairing the roof leak from September 2023 until September 2024. It also failed to: meaningfully communicate with the resident, consider how it might mitigate the impact of the leak while the repairs were outstanding, or address her reports of damp and mould.
We note the landlord has already paid the resident £350 for stress and inconvenience caused by delays in addressing the leak and a lack of related communication. However, we do not consider this goes far enough for the following reasons:
1. The delays and poor communication related to the roof repair persisted following the landlord’s stage 2 response for a further 6 months.
2. The resident was unable to use her bedroom for several months during periods of heavy rain which likely significantly hampered her ability to make full use of her own home.
3. The sum is not proportionate to the length of the total delay and the severity of the likely impact on the resident during this period.
4. The landlord has not acknowledged or offered any redress for its failure to address the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
5. Our compensation guidance sets out that payments of £600 to £1000 are typically sufficient to put right failures which have caused significant impacts.
With all this in mind, we will order the landlord pays the resident a further £650 to bring the total compensation to the top of our scale.
We also note that the resident advised the landlord at both complaint stages that she had incurred significant costs due to the leak and removal of the loft insulation. She advised that the loft was largely uninsulated from September 2023 until September 2024. She explained that she therefore had to use far more energy heating the property than she otherwise would, and in running dehumidifiers to counteract the impact of both the resulting cold and damp caused by the leak. There is no indication the landlord addressed these requests at either complaint stage. Therefore, we will order it to do so.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days, and provide a response within 10 working days of this. It will then acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days, and issue a response within 20 working days of this. When it is unable to meet these timescales, it will explain this to residents and provide updated timescales.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response 19 working days past the timescale set out in its policy. We can see it contacted the resident 10 working days after her complaint to advise its response would be delayed until 26 January 2024. It acted positively by letting her know there would be a delay. However, it then failed to issue its response within the extended timescale and did not do so until 8 February 2024. The landlord then delayed slightly in issuing its stage 2 response by 3 working days. It is likely that these delays cumulatively caused the resident some minor frustration, and we note that the landlord has not acknowledged this at either complaint stage.
Given this, we will order the landlord to pay some minor compensation to put this right. Our guidance sets out that payments of £50 to £100 are typically sufficient to put right these types of minor failings. Therefore, we will order the landlord pays £75 to put this right to reflect the positive action it took in updating the resident about the stage 1 delay.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping was poor at many stages throughout the period in question. For instance, emails from March 2024 indicate that it had incorrectly marked the outstanding roof repair as complete. We would encourage the landlord to reflect on the importance of maintaining accurate records and how it might have better managed the repair had it done so.

Communication

The communication was poor throughout the entire period. The landlord consistently failed to update the resident about the progress of repairs, and so she was forced to repeatedly chase it. We would encourage the landlord to reflect on this and how more proactive communication might have better mitigated the impact of the delays on the resident.